Sola Fide Contradiction

[PJY86]

Recently, I have been discussing doctrine with a friend. In trying to explain his belief of sola fide, he summed it up like this:

“We are justified by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.”

I have heard this a few times and always though it a very curious idea. The sentence seems flatly contradictory if the two instances of the word faith mean the same thing. “Faith that is alone” is tantamount to “faith by itself”, which is tantamount to “faith alone”. So, the sentence is essentially saying, “We are justified by faith by itself, but not by faith by itself.” The sentence may only escape contradiction if faith means two different things in the two different instances. In other words, faith in the first sense has what faith in the second sense lacks. We must assume the presence of a quality or component in the first instance that isn’t included in the “alone-ness” of the second sense. We should then have to qualify that faith in the first sense includes the quality or component of charity. The doctrine should be justifying faith alone, instead of merely faith alone. Finally, we can see then that faith and works is just another (and easier to understand) way of saying justifying faith.
My friend tried explaining that is wasn’t the word faith which changes meaning, but the word alone. However, with a bit of thought, you see that the same contradiction applies. This seems like a classic case of equivocation.

I have seen this statement a few times on the forums, but I haven’t noticed anyone label it contradictory or even equivocation. It is this because everyone sees something I don’t? It seems like a cheap attempt to hold on to a doctrine that you don’t really buy. So, again, please tell me if I am missing something.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I agree with your assessment. It is at best poorly worded, and at worst, just a tongue-twister attempt to not sound Catholic.

 

[promethius]

Recently, I have been discussing doctrine with a friend. In trying to explain his belief of sola fide, he summed it up like this:

“We are justified by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.”

I have heard this a few times and always though it a very curious idea. The sentence seems flatly contradictory if the two instances of the word faith mean the same thing. “Faith that is alone” is tantamount to “faith by itself”, which is tantamount to “faith alone”. So, the sentence is essentially saying, “We are justified by faith by itself, but not by faith by itself.” The sentence may only escape contradiction if faith means two different things in the two different instances. In other words, faith in the first sense has what faith in the second sense lacks. We must assume the presence of a quality or component in the first instance that isn’t included in the “alone-ness” of the second sense. We should then have to qualify that faith in the first sense includes the quality or component of charity. The doctrine should be justifying faith alone, instead of merely faith alone. Finally, we can see then that faith and works is just another (and easier to understand) way of saying justifying faith.
My friend tried explaining that is wasn’t the word faith which changes meaning, but the word alone. However, with a bit of thought, you see that the same contradiction applies. This seems like a classic case of equivocation.

I have seen this statement a few times on the forums, but I haven’t noticed anyone label it contradictory or even equivocation. It is this because everyone sees something I don’t? It seems like a cheap attempt to hold on to a doctrine that you don’t really buy. So, again, please tell me if I am missing something.

My, my, my… I’d tell him to stop playing tongue twisters and start reading his bible. The bible clearly states that we are not saved by faith, but rather by GRACE.

Then tell him to visit mass if he wants to be part of a true “sola Venia” scriptural church.

Here’s how it works if he tries to argue with you:

1. Saved by GRACE ← something God gives to us
2. through FAITH ← Something WE have, ergo something that CANNOT save us
3. which is made living by works ← something WE do, incapable of saving us, but per james gives meaning and growth of life to our faith.

Really, protestants should drop the claim of Catholics not reading our bibles if they believe that sola fide is anything approaching scriptural.

 

[Deconi]

My, my, my… I’d tell him to stop playing tongue twisters and start reading his bible. The bible clearly states that we are not saved by faith, but rather by GRACE.

Then tell him to visit mass if he wants to be part of a true “sola Venia” scriptural church.
**
Here’s how it works if he tries to argue with you:

1. Saved by GRACE ← something God gives to us
2. through FAITH ← Something WE have, ergo something that CANNOT save us
3. which is made living by works ← something WE do, incapable of saving us, but per james gives meaning and growth of life to our faith.**

Really, protestants should drop the claim of Catholics not reading our bibles if they believe that sola fide is anything approaching scriptural.

I have seen many definitions, and sometimes voluminous tribe, of Sola Fide argumentations.

This, emboldened above, is one of the best I have seen. Simplicity of Truth in motion.

 

[PJY86]

Good to see I’m not the only one that sees the gross contradictions in this doctrine. It is no wonder Luther spoke of Reason as a whore. A man married to such unreasonable ideas could very well say such things when Reason comes between him and his beloved doctrine.

 

[Dchsknight]

I have seen many definitions, and sometimes voluminous tribe, of Sola Fide argumentations.

This, emboldened above, is one of the best I have seen. Simplicity of Truth in motion.

i totally Completely Agree!

 

[garysibio]

Recently, I have been discussing doctrine with a friend. In trying to explain his belief of sola fide, he summed it up like this:

“We are justified by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.”

I have heard this a few times and always though it a very curious idea. The sentence seems flatly contradictory if the two instances of the word faith mean the same thing. “Faith that is alone” is tantamount to “faith by itself”, which is tantamount to “faith alone”. So, the sentence is essentially saying, “We are justified by faith by itself, but not by faith by itself.” The sentence may only escape contradiction if faith means two different things in the two different instances. In other words, faith in the first sense has what faith in the second sense lacks. We must assume the presence of a quality or component in the first instance that isn’t included in the “alone-ness” of the second sense. We should then have to qualify that faith in the first sense includes the quality or component of charity. The doctrine should be justifying faith alone, instead of merely faith alone. Finally, we can see then that faith and works is just another (and easier to understand) way of saying justifying faith.
My friend tried explaining that is wasn’t the word faith which changes meaning, but the word alone. However, with a bit of thought, you see that the same contradiction applies. This seems like a classic case of equivocation.

I have seen this statement a few times on the forums, but I haven’t noticed anyone label it contradictory or even equivocation. It is this because everyone sees something I don’t? It seems like a cheap attempt to hold on to a doctrine that you don’t really buy. So, again, please tell me if I am missing something.

Sounds like he’s trying to have it both ways. Although they pay lip service to their belief in sola fide, in practice they know that is not how God expects us to live or even how they live.

Gary

 

[Seeking12]

Recently, I have been discussing doctrine with a friend. In trying to explain his belief of sola fide, he summed it up like this:

“We are justified by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.”

I have heard this a few times and always though it a very curious idea. The sentence seems flatly contradictory if the two instances of the word faith mean the same thing. “Faith that is alone” is tantamount to “faith by itself”, which is tantamount to “faith alone”. So, the sentence is essentially saying, “We are justified by faith by itself, but not by faith by itself.” The sentence may only escape contradiction if faith means two different things in the two different instances. In other words, faith in the first sense has what faith in the second sense lacks. We must assume the presence of a quality or component in the first instance that isn’t included in the “alone-ness” of the second sense. We should then have to qualify that faith in the first sense includes the quality or component of charity. The doctrine should be justifying faith alone, instead of merely faith alone. Finally, we can see then that faith and works is just another (and easier to understand) way of saying justifying faith.
My friend tried explaining that is wasn’t the word faith which changes meaning, but the word alone. However, with a bit of thought, you see that the same contradiction applies. This seems like a classic case of equivocation.

I have seen this statement a few times on the forums, but I haven’t noticed anyone label it contradictory or even equivocation. It is this because everyone sees something I don’t? It seems like a cheap attempt to hold on to a doctrine that you don’t really buy. So, again, please tell me if I am missing something.

**It is interesting you did not make an immediate connection to the Book of James. This is a simple way of saying that “saving” faith will be known by its fruits. “Faith without works is dead faith”

True faith will always result in good works, which God preordained that Christians would walk in them. Whereas the Church will not say, but nonetheless teach, that it is faith plus sacraments (works) in order have more grace dispensed,
which means grace is no longer grace; is it?

Se Ephesians 2:8 for what true salvation consist of.**

 

[DavWan]

**It is interesting you did not make an immediate connection to the Book of James. This is a simple way of saying that “saving” faith will be known by its fruits. “Faith without works is dead faith”

True faith will always result in good works, which God preordained that Christians would walk in them. Whereas the Church will not say, but nonetheless teach, that it is faith plus sacraments (works) in order have more grace dispensed,
which means grace is no longer grace; is it?

Se Ephesians 2:8 for what true salvation consist of.**

Are you making the claim that a person who really has faith will automatically do things? That isn’t what James is saying. he is saying it is not enough to have faith. You need to put your faith into action. Hence the examples of Abraham and Rahab. They not only believed in what God said, but their faith led them to act on what they were told.

It is interesting that the only place in the Bible where the phrase “Faith Alone” is mentioned in saying that Faith Alone without works is dead in James 2.

 

[SteveGC]

Whereas the Church will not say, but nonetheless teach, that it is faith plus sacraments (works) in order have more grace dispensed,
which means grace is no longer grace; is it?

The Church will not say? Let’s see what the Church has to say (and teach)…

CCC:

*1697 …for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life; *

*1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son’s Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.

1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He “acquired” this right by his cross. The Father has given “all judgment to the Son”. Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. **By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love. **

1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” **Living faith “works through charity.” **

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. **But “faith apart from works is dead”: when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body. **

1816 The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: “All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks.” Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: “So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” *

On the contrary, it seems the Church, as usual, has plenty to say.

 

[VociMike]

True faith will always result in good works

Then “true faith” (by which I presume you mean saving faith) is never “alone,” is it?

This dual insistence, that it is faith alone and that this faith is never alone, sounds schizophrenic to me. It’s like talking about single women who are always married.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Recently, I have been discussing doctrine with a friend. In trying to explain his belief of sola fide, he summed it up like this:

“We are justified by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.”

I have heard this a few times and always though it a very curious idea. The sentence seems flatly contradictory if the two instances of the word faith mean the same thing. “Faith that is alone” is tantamount to “faith by itself”, which is tantamount to “faith alone”. So, the sentence is essentially saying, “We are justified by faith by itself, but not by faith by itself.” The sentence may only escape contradiction if faith means two different things in the two different instances. In other words, faith in the first sense has what faith in the second sense lacks. We must assume the presence of a quality or component in the first instance that isn’t included in the “alone-ness” of the second sense. We should then have to qualify that faith in the first sense includes the quality or component of charity. The doctrine should be justifying faith alone, instead of merely faith alone. Finally, we can see then that faith and works is just another (and easier to understand) way of saying justifying faith.
My friend tried explaining that is wasn’t the word faith which changes meaning, but the word alone. However, with a bit of thought, you see that the same contradiction applies. This seems like a classic case of equivocation.

I have seen this statement a few times on the forums, but I haven’t noticed anyone label it contradictory or even equivocation. It is this because everyone sees something I don’t? It seems like a cheap attempt to hold on to a doctrine that you don’t really buy. So, again, please tell me if I am missing something.

It is not contradictory, but deceptive.

You might have heard the snow-covered pile of dung analogy which is claimed to have originated with Luther. Anyway, the idea is that man as a sinner is like a pile of dung and is repulsive in God’s sight. When it comes time for justification, a blanket of snow (“the righteousness of Christ” as they call it) comes and covers the dung. Now, God sees pure white and declares the pile of dung “righteous,” that is “justified.”
Catholics condemn this view of justification because God cannot call something other than what it really is (Heb 4:13) and it is an injustice for God to act like that. For Catholics, God’s grace is infused and transforms the soul, making it actually righteous and God sees and calls that soul “righteous.”

ANYWAY, where “faith alone” comes in is that faith is the instrument which reaches out and grabs the blanket of snow and applies it to the sinner. It is ALONE because that is the only tool necessary to grab hold of the “righteousness of Christ.” It is similar to how only a spoon is used to eat soup rather than a fork.

So when they say for JUSTIFICATION that “faith alone saves, but faith is never alone,” that is akin to saying “spoon alone is used for eating soup, but at the table spoons are not alone because forks (hope) and knives (love) also are set.”

So while this is NOT a contradiction, it is deceptive in that they dont want to make faith appear “naked” but at the same time admit it is ‘naked’.

For PROTESTANTS, the “forks (hope) and knives (love)” do NOT apply to Justification, but rather the good works that follow AFTER justification. They believe anyone with “true faith” (a term not Biblical) will automatically produce good works (ie acts of love and hope) after justification, but the Bible nowhere teaches that (and infact contradicts it, eg 2 Pt 1:9).

 

[promethius]

i totally Completely Agree!

Thank you both for your comments

I’d like to revise the above section, however, since protestants tend to object by saying that Paul says that it is not through works at all, hence that works flow from faith, not necessarily build and sustain faith as James seems to imply.

If we revise statement 3) which is made living through works to “which is made living through Godly works for which we are ordained by Christ” I think this improves the statement.

This, then, fully incorporates the quote from ephesians… including the verse immediately following “and not by works lest any man should boast”… a verse which protestants tend to ignore since it clearly delineates that when paul FIRST mention works he is speaking in the legalistic sense of works of the law, but he clarifies that we are created for GOOD works and ordained for them by Christ. This, I think, brings James and Paul FULLY into agreement.

 

[Seeking12]

Are you making the claim that a person who really has faith will automatically do things? That isn’t what James is saying. he is saying it is not enough to have faith. You need to put your faith into action. Hence the examples of Abraham and Rahab. They not only believed in what God said, but their faith led them to act on what they were told.

It is interesting that the only place in the Bible where the phrase “Faith Alone” is mentioned in saying that Faith Alone without works is dead in James 2.

**You are ignorant of what James is teaching. James is not saying faith plus works; otherwise he is contradicting Paul; right?
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Since we know that James cannot be contradicting Paul, then what is James saying. He is simple saying that works are the result of “saving” faith; therefore the true faith that is wrought from God will result in good works whereas faith not wrought of God is dead. Another way to put is it saving faith will always result in good works preordained by God; works are never the means of faith or grace.**

 

[Seeking12]

Thank you both for your comments

I’d like to revise the above section, however, since protestants tend to object by saying that Paul says that it is not through works at all, hence that works flow from faith, not necessarily build and sustain faith as James seems to imply.

If we revise statement 3) which is made living through works to “which is made living through Godly works for which we are ordained by Christ” I think this improves the statement.

This, then, fully incorporates the quote from ephesians… including the verse immediately following “and not by works lest any man should boast”… a verse which protestants tend to ignore since it clearly delineates that when paul FIRST mention works he is speaking in the legalistic sense of works of the law, but he clarifies that we are created for GOOD works and ordained for them by Christ. This, I think, brings James and Paul FULLY into agreement.

You can revise all you want, but that will not distract from the truth that Paul gave us so clearly. The fact that you cannot discern what James is saying does not change the truth. I is time for you to start digging harder as to the meaning of James because we know Scripture does not contradict itself. If it appears to, then you do not understand and need to work a little harder…agree?

 

[VociMike]

Here’s the fault I find with “faith alone”. If we must not say “faith and works” because works flow from faith, then by the same logic we should not say “faith alone” because faith flows from grace.

Completely inconsistent. What is rejected on the one hand is accepted on the other.

 

[Seeking12]

Then “true faith” (by which I presume you mean saving faith) is never “alone,” is it?

This dual insistence, that it is faith alone and that this faith is never alone, sounds schizophrenic to me. It’s like talking about single women who are always married.

**Mike, just because you do not understand the truth does not change the truth; you just need to do more homework to get it right.
Saving faith will always result in good works; it is not the means, which is another gospel and what you have been lead to understand.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through R91 faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Thank God this passage is so crystal clear that my child can understand it plainly.**

 

[VociMike]

Mike, just because you do not understand the truth does not change the truth; you just need to do more homework to get it right.

No, my days of doing homework are done.

Having cleared up that point, why don’t you respond to my post just above yours.

 

[SteveGC]

I grow ill from all this ignorant Catholic-bashing. Because Seeking seems to take pleasure in ignoring ACTUAL Church teaching, I am re-submitting my above post, for his review. I would ask that he actually read it, without his anti-Catholic lenses on for once. He seems to insist that we believe our works merit our salvation, that we hold firm to the idea that grace means nothing to us. If it weren’t so utterly annoying that he robotically claim that our works are done without “true faith”, it would be amusing. So please read this Seeking, read it slowly, and if you then want to refute something, refute it from official teaching…

From the CCC:

*1697 …for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life; *

1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son’s Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.

1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He “acquired” this right by his cross. The Father has given “all judgment to the Son”. Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. **By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love. **

1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” **Living faith “works through charity.” **

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. **But “faith apart from works is dead”: when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body. **

1816 The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: “All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks.” Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: “So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”

You could also, if you wanted to, Seeking, read the whole CCC for free by going to this site. I would think anyone who really wanted to proselytize Catholics out of their faith, should AT LEAST know what they are ACTUALLY taught, don’t you?

 

[Seeking12]

I grow ill from all this ignorant Catholic-bashing. Because Seeking seems to take pleasure in ignoring ACTUAL Church teaching, I am re-submitting my above post, for his review. I would ask that he actually read it, without his anti-Catholic lenses on for once. He seems to insist that we believe our works merit our salvation, that we hold firm to the idea that grace means nothing to us. If it weren’t so utterly annoying that he robotically claim that our works are done without “true faith”, it would be amusing. So please read this Seeking, read it slowly, and if you then want to refute something, refute it from official teaching…

You could also, if you wanted to, Seeking, read the whole CCC for free by going to this site. I would think anyone who really wanted to proselytize Catholics out of their faith, should AT LEAST know what they are ACTUALLY taught, don’t you?

It would help if you were able to discern you own Church teaching. "From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them. " Again; if depends on what? What you do or don’t do? Never receive a Sacrament and where will you be according to your own church’s teaching? Are you so blind you can’t even understand what your own Church teaches? It is transparent that you can’t understand what Scripture teaches.
Ephesians: 2:8-9, Matt 16:18, 18:18, John 6:63-68 I don’t want to see your souls condemned; I don’t dislike any Catholic; In fact I have a heart for all of you; it is the teaching you have fallen to that I don’t like; it is not the gospel of Christ and you are in danger.